Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 15:55 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dr Nicholas J
> Bailey<n.j.bailey@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> >> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
> >> 'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
> >> version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
> >> headers.
> >
> > My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate
> > process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK,
> > same memory space => derived work.

> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
> This would obviously be absurd.

[ #include <ianal.h> ]

Just to chime in here: the issue is distribution. The address space of
the running Cubase application would constitute a "derived work". It
involves copying (the binary image into memory) so a license is required
but as I understand it, that copying isn't restricted in the GPL like
distribution is.

However, if a user took an image of the running application's address
space and then distributed that image to a third-party, the user would
be in violation of the plugin author's copyright. I would note as well
that with the proliferation of x86 virtual machines, this isn't actually
such a far fetched idea.

-- 
Bob Ham <rah@email-addr-hidden>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev